[mr1303]

Hi everyone. I've recently started playing a simple 2/1 system with my other half, and we've decided to play 2D as a Flannery opening, as this hand is difficult to bid using a forcing NT. However, we're not 100% sure as to what are the best continuations.

For those of you who don't know, a Flannery 2D shows exactly 4 spades, 5 hearts, and a hand not strong enough to reverse.

My initial thoughts are as follows:

2D (P):

2H/S = to play
2NT = some sort of strong asking bid
3C/D = natural, forcing
3H/S = either pre-emptive or invitational.
3NT = to play
4C/D = cue bid agreeing hearts
4H/S = to play

Comments would be warmly appreciated

Mark

[1eyedjack]

mr1303, on Jun 24 2004, 09:41 AM, said:

Hi everyone. I've recently started playing a simple 2/1 system with my other half, and we've decided to play 2D as a Flannery opening, as this hand is difficult to bid using a forcing NT.

Or you could play "Kaplan Interchange" (sometimes known as "Granville") where 1S response to 1H is treated as the forcing NT (with up to 4 Spades), and 1N response to 1H shows (5+) Spades, also forcing. That takes away the problem hand (4-5-2-2) that gives rise for the need for Flannery in the first place, and frees up the 2D opener for better uses.

If you plan to play the same system in a GCC licenced event in ACBLand then you may run into problems with that. Not sure that it is permitted (not my area - I think it was at one point but then they backtracked).

Personally, if I am not allowed to use that method I would rather open 1H with 4-5-2-2 and have 1H-1N-2C show 2+ Clubs, rather than use up 2D as Flannery.

[JRG]

1eyedjack, on Jun 24 2004, 11:02 AM, said:

mr1303, on Jun 24 2004, 09:41 AM, said:

Hi everyone. I've recently started playing a simple 2/1 system with my other half, and we've decided to play 2D as a Flannery opening, as this hand is difficult to bid using a forcing NT.

Or you could play "Kaplan Interchange" (sometimes known as "Granville") where 1S response to 1H is treated as the forcing NT (with up to 4 Spades), and 1N response to 1H shows (5+) Spades, also forcing. That takes away the problem hand (4-5-2-2) that gives rise for the need for Flannery in the first place, and frees up the 2D opener for better uses.

If you plan to play the same system in a GCC licenced event in ACBLand then you may run into problems with that. Not sure that it is permitted (not my area - I think it was at one point but then they backtracked).

Personally, if I am not allowed to use that method I would rather open 1H with 4-5-2-2 and have 1H-1N-2C show 2+ Clubs, rather than use up 2D as Flannery.

My partner and I played Kaplan Inversion, but not quite the way you describe it (we stopped for exactly the reason you mentioned - sometimes we could play it, but most of the time not).

I've seen pairs playing it the way you describe -- and I think at least one pair in the USA Team Trials (broadcast on BBO) was playing it (and it appeared from the commentators' remarks they were playing it the way you describe).

However, I don't understand the advantage of playing it the way you describe it (1♠ showing 4 or less ♠s and 1NT showing 5 or more ♠s). How do you find a 4-4 ♠ fit on a minimum 4-5-x-x? Surely the auction cannot go

1♥ - 1♠
2♠

? This would be a reverse.

What my partner and I played was almost what you describe, except 1♥ - 1♠ = 1NT Forcing with 3 or less ♠s and 1♥ - 1NT = 4 or more ♠s. So a minimum 4-5-x-x with a 4-card ♠ suit opposite would go:

1♥ - 1NT
2♠

and if partner didn't have 4 or more ♠s, we played that the following was non-forcing (which we thought was one of the big advantages of the Kaplan Inversion):

1♥ - 1♠
1NT

I'd appreciate more information on the Kaplan Inversion (or a URL if you know of one with a complete explanation). Thanks.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I you are going to play Flannery, use 2H to show this hand type rather than 2D. Much more efficient use of bidding space

Comment 2: Don't play Flannery

There are much better ways to handle this hand type than wasting a 2H opening.

Kaplan Interchange or using 1M - 1N - 2C as 2+ Clubs are both preferable.

[Gerben47]

I agree with hrothgar. Don't play Flannery.

Kaplan Inversion is described on my website:

http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~di...dge/kaplan.html

[tysen2k]

hrothgar, on Jun 24 2004, 01:53 PM, said:

Comment 1:  I you are going to play Flannery, use 2H to show this hand type rather than 2D.  Much more efficient use of bidding space

Comment 2:  Don't play Flannery

Comment 3: Don't play Flannery

[the hog]

Comment 4. Flanney is a waste of a bid.

[luke warm]

i notice everyone (almost) has the same comment: don't play flannery... i honestly find that strange... i remember watching a usbc on vugraph with 2over1 not very long ago and we both noticed the sheer number of players who used it.. these weren't bad players, by the way... now i'm sure some of the ones who have said flannery is a waste of time are pretty good players also... however, it's very hard to argue against the convention when i've seen world class partnerships use it so often

to answer your original question, 2D (or preferably 2H) shows 45xx... the 2h/s bids are to play... 2nt usually asks for a fragment (4513 4531), meaning bid the 3 card suit, and is a game force.. with 4522 shape, bid 3H with a minimum, 3S with max (whatever those terms mean in your p'ship).. 3h/s are preemptive, and 4h/s can be also... 3nt is to play

the rest of the structure is up to p'ship agreement.. i've seen 3c/d used as slam interest in the corresponding major (3c for hearts, 3d for spade) and i've seen those bids used as natural

[the hog]

Some points Luke:

many players use what their peers use. Flannery is not well known outside the US. Not one player I know of plays it here in Australia.
You don't need Flannery if you use Kaplan inversion. (We don't use KI and we still don't need Flannery!)
2D can be put to much better use as something else - a multi, or Wilkosz or Tutti frutti

So all in all it is a waste of a bid. Mind you Mike Lucy, (Yzerman), loves it and has written a nice post on it some time ago.

[luke warm]

i like it also and play it when i can find someone who will.. i prefer 2H to 2D, but will play either... aside from that, all i meant to point out was that the convention can't be as bad as one would believe, by the opinions given, since some of the best in the world play it.. on the other side of the coin, some of the best in the world *don't* play it...

the kaplan inversion looks good also... i especially like jrg's way, 1H : 1S (showing <4) : 1nt to play, which might be hard to do in normal 2/1... however, i'm not sure it's allowed in a gcc event... will check

[1eyedjack]

JRG, on Jun 24 2004, 01:44 PM, said:

However, I don't understand the advantage of playing it the way you describe it (1♠ showing 4 or less ♠s and 1NT showing 5 or more ♠s). How do you find a 4-4 ♠ fit on a minimum 4-5-x-x? Surely the auction cannot go

1♥ - 1♠
2♠

? This would be a reverse.

Indeed, if opener has extra values he would reverse into 2♠

In the version that I learned, opener's 1NT rebid showed a minimum opener with 4-5-?-? shape. With 5♥332 shape he would still rebid a 3 card minor (as he would opposite a standard forcing NT).

Your way may well be better. You get to play in 1N on different hands. Neither of us can play in 1N when responder has 4♠ and opener has fewer, when a natural system (possibly including Flannery) would go 1♥-1♠-1N NF

My method immediately distinguishes between 4 and 5 card ♠ suit in responder.

I later played around with the rebids and used:
1♥-1♠-1N = 5332 or 4♦ (NF)
..........-2♣ = 6+♥, F
..........-2♦ = 4♠
..........-2♥ = 4♣, weak

This restores the frequency of playing in 1N, whilst retaining the distinction between the 4 and 5 card ♠ suit. Of course there is always a cost, and in in this case it is when responder has a weak misfit opposite a 2♥ rebid and would have preferred to play somewhere lower. The way I played it opener would be 15-17 if balanced (playing 12-14 1N opener including 5 card ♥ suit), which affects the frequencies, and makes it sensible for 1♥-1♠-1N-2♣ to be a forcing relay, giving opener a cheap stop-out in 2♦ if weak with ♦ opposite a hand that had a game try opposite a strong 1N.

[helene_t]

How do you deal with light 1♥-openings in 3rd seat if you play KI? Playing natural methods, you can open 1♥ if you are prepared to pass 1♠.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Jun 25 2004, 02:38 AM, said:

How do you deal with light 1♥-openings in 3rd seat if you play KI? Playing natural methods, you can open 1♥ if you are prepared to pass 1♠.

If you are playing it in 3rd seat I would not make any changes to 1st/2nd seat, and yes, this means that you do not get to play in 1♠. I do not rate that as a great loss. However, if you are playing some sort of Drury then there may be little point in playing any form of forcing NT, in which case you could do away with both KI and Flannery, which may be the best solution of all.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2004, 02:04 AM, said:

i notice everyone (almost) has the same comment: don't play flannery... i honestly find that strange... i remember watching a usbc on vugraph with 2over1 not very long ago and we both noticed the sheer number of players who used it.. these weren't bad players, by the way...

I know of three top pairs in the US who play some version of Flannery.

I've seen Meckwell use 2H as a Falnnery opening
I've seen Hamman use 2H as Flannery in a number of partnership
I'm pretty sure that Martel-Stansby also use a 2D Flannery opening

I'm sure that I am missing some others:

If it works for them, who I am to argue.

With this said and done, this is a relatively small subset of the top US pairs. More significantly, I can't think of ANY strong pairs outside the US who play Flannery.

[luke warm]

those pairs you mentioned have a fair number of world titles between them... true, most of that is due to things other than flannery, but they saw *something* in the convention.. and comparing what others play to what they play may not make the 'others' come out in the best light

i like it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is its preemptive value... and helene had a good point, also.. anyway, i'll say it one more time.. the only thing i'm trying to point out is, if some of these great players use flannery, how can some of the posters here be so dogmatic as to its uselessness?... just seems a tad arrogant to me

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2004, 03:48 PM, said:

those pairs you mentioned have a fair number of world titles between them... true, most of that is due to things other than flannery, but they saw *something* in the convention.. and comparing what others play to what they play may not make the 'others' come out in the best light

All well and true. With this said and done,

Hamman is not noted as a theorist. The entire reason that he started playing "Orange Club" was to avoid having to work on system notes.

The strength of Meckwell's system is primarily its depth. Analytically, Meckwell precision is certainly a good system, but its certainly not dominant.

Its hard to judge Martel and Stansby. For example, Martel claims that Polish Club is fundamentally flawed and that has methods that can exploit this. However, Martel also refuses to provided much information that can be used to evaluate this. [I will note that Martel and Stansby have a great record against the Poles]

On a more general level, while the US has enjoyed some success in International bridge, I don't think that this is related to the strength of its bidding methods. from my perspective, the single most important factor explaining US success is the relatively large population of professional bridge players.

[1eyedjack]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2004, 07:48 AM, said:

i like it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is its preemptive value

The bid's preemptive effect is a function of three factors that I can think of: (1) how much bidding space is consumed, (2) the frequency of its use, and (3) how much that consumption of space inconveniences the opponents.

The 2D (or 2H) opener occupies the same amount of bidding space whatever meaning is assigned to it.

I don't know enough stats to say whether Flannery hands are more frequent than other preemptive uses that you may wish to assign to the bid as an alternative, but instinctively I speculate that it is less frequent than most other common preemptive uses for the bid.

As to the amount of inconvenience that you cause to the opponents by the Flannery "preempt", I am sure that it is not difficult to construct individual hands to illustrate its potential effectiveness. However, considering the big picture, I find that if there are two factors cause me to be disinterested in preempting the opponents it is when I have an opening hand with both majors.

[1eyedjack]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2004, 07:48 AM, said:

anyway, i'll say it one more time.. the only thing i'm trying to point out is, if some of these great players use flannery, how can some of the posters here be so dogmatic as to its uselessness?... just seems a tad arrogant to me

As one of those who posted a suggestion not to play Flannery I take exception to this comment.

mr1303 posted a question. I provided one solution of several possibilities. My solution happened to involve giving up using Flannery, a solution that happens to be my preference although I never suggested that it makes a world-beating difference. mr1303 can take it or leave it, but just possibly he may not have been aware of it. Am I to be accused of arrogance whenever you can provide a handful of experts who play methods that differ from my preference?

[luke warm]

if you take exception, then i apologize... but you have to agree that statements such as "flannery is a wasted bid" or simply "don't use flannery" flies in the face of some world class advice given by those who *do* play it... look at the relative achievements or skill levels first... can dogmaticism seem arrogant to you, at least some of the time? if so, when?

btw, i'm not talking about you or anyone else giving an opinion on a convention... we all do that, all the time... however, don't you think it might be slightly arrogant for someone to tell, for example, meckwell that their use of flannery is a waste, or to say "don't use this convention, you don't need it"... i imagine they think they *do* need it... i imagine others less gifted use it for the same reason

[Gerben47]

Same here. First of all Meckwell do not play Flannery contrary to what others have said.

From their CC:
1st/2nd seat: 2♦: Multi 2♥: 11 - 15 , short ♦ (Some sort of Mini-Roman)
3rd/4th seat: 2♦: 11 - 15, short ♦ (Some sort of Mini-Roman), 2♥ weak 2

Although it might work for those few USA Experts (which tells you it can't be very bad) I cannot imagine playing such a system.

If Meckwell have played it before and don't play it now, that tells you: Don't play it! They tried it and rejected it.

Also this convention, unlike many others, has had NO success at all to get popular abroad. I'd be surprised if any of the pairs in Malmö play it (if you find someone who does let me know).

One last warning. EVERY convention (yes even Gerber) works on the hands it was designed for. In some Vugraph broadcast I saw Flannery preempt opponents out of a game and gain IMPs. So? On this particular hand it worked well to have this convention. On others you'd like another meaning for 2♦. But you can only have one! And many other meanings are much nicer.